Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40324173›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Electronic Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

Maxime Sasseville, Wilfried Supper, Jean-Baptiste Gartner, Géraldine Layani, Samira Amil, Peter Sheffield, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Catherine Hudon, Sylvie Lambert, Eugène Attisso and 13 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Adaptation of digital integration of PROMs and PREMs in oncology during implementation: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Maxime SassevilleFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1694-1414
Wilfried SupperFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-6642-5768
Jean-Baptiste GartnerFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5907-6112
Géraldine LayaniFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1764-6433
Samira AmilFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4024-9762
Peter SheffieldFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0009-1869-5035
Marie-Pierre GagnonFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0782-5457
Catherine HudonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6140-9916
Sylvie LambertFaculty of Nursing, Université McGill, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9202-9251
Eugène AttissoFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0820-0993
Steven OuelletFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2158-0043
Mylaine BretonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5713-9618
Marie-Eve PoitrasFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3315-0190
Pierre-Henri Roux-LévyFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-7716-9931
James PlaisimondFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0007-4986-7712
Frédéric BergeronFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0978-7420
Rachelle AshcroftFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5666-1946
Sabrina T WongUBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research and School of Nursing, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9619-9012
Antoine GroulxFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0995-093X
Jean-Sébastien PaquetteFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-6761
Natasha D'AnjouPatient Partner, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-7168-6639
Sylviane LangloisPatient Partner, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0004-5074-518X
Annie LeBlancFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5377-8102

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManaging chronic diseases remains a critical challenge in primary health care (PHC) across the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are emerging as valuable tools for enhancing patient engagement, facilitating clinical decision-making, and improving health outcomes. However, their implementation in PHC remains limited, with significant variability in effectiveness and adoption.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to assess the implementation and effectiveness of ePROMs in chronic disease management within PHC settings and to identify key barriers and facilitators influencing their integration.

methodsA mixed methods systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Methods and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies that implemented ePROMs among adults for chronic disease management in PHC. The extracted data included patient health outcomes, provider workflow implications, implementation factors, and cost considerations. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework was used.

resultsOur search yielded 12,525 references, from which 22 (0.18%) studies were included after screening and exclusions. These studies, primarily conducted in the United States (n=9, 41%) and Canada (n=8, 36%), covered various chronic diseases and used diverse ePROM tools, predominantly mobile apps (n=9, 41%). While some studies (n=10, 45%) reported improvements in patient health outcomes and self-management, others (n=12, 55%) indicated no significant change. Key barriers included digital literacy gaps, integration challenges within clinical workflows, and increased provider workload. Facilitators included strong patient-provider relationships, personalized interventions, and technical support for users. While some studies (n=10, 45%) demonstrated improved patient engagement and self-management, long-term cost-effectiveness and sustainability remain uncertain.

conclusionsSuccess in implementing ePROMs in PHC appears to hinge on addressing digital literacy, ensuring personalization and meaningful patient-provider interactions, carefully integrating technology into clinical workflows, and conducting thorough research on their long-term impacts and cost-effectiveness. Future efforts should focus on these areas to fully realize the benefits of digital health technologies for patients, providers, and health care systems.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022333513; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022333513. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/48155.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPrimary Health CareChronic DiseaseHumansdigital healthimplementation sciencepatient-reported outcomes measuresPRISMAsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40324173
PMCPMC12089857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.